The Sigma 50/1.4 is sharp and clean. Much sharper and cleaner than the Canon 50L. Having owned both, my conclusion is: the Canon 50L is a much better lens. It does something that the Sigma cannot do - it injects personality and character into photographs. The 8-straight aperture blades create bokeh that the clinical Sigma cannot ever match. The 1.2 aperture isolates subject matter with a softness and beauty that the 1.4 cannot get close to. The distortion and vignetting help emphasize the subject and pull it toward you out of the frame. It has contrast, it renders colour beautifully, it somehow magically softens skin tones and makes people better looking. It does this without fuss or hassle - it is fast, weather sealed, and any unwanted abberations (of which there are very few) are eliminated in Lightroom with a mouse-click. Reviews like this are helpful - they tell you what is objectively a technically better lens on paper. But on paper tests are only one part of the picture, and it is disappointing that this is not discussed in detail. Canon never made the 50L to destroy all MTF charts. They made the 50L so that people can take beautiful photos. Sigma doesn't understand this, neither do many other lens manufacturers (looking at you too, Sony). When you make glass that sets MTF benchmarks, you add more elements, more coatings, and more complexity, that ultimately destroy any character a lens would otherwise have. We are facing a world of modern technically excellent but emotionally fucking dead glass. What a shit world that will be. I'm sure the 100 megapixel Sony a8 with 18 blade aperture 22 element zeiss 50mm 1.4 lens will take photos without any vignetting or distortion, but it will also render a depressingly average, bland and flat photograph. Perfect for surveillance cameras, NASA missions, or driverless cars, but not for beautiful photography. Fuck modern lenses - they are all basically shit. No wonder people are snapping up Polaroid cameras and old film stock - we are desperate for some fucking personality. Sincerely, Former disgruntled owner of multiple perfect Sigma Art lenses and current happy owner of some of the shittest glass in the world.
I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. Having said that, I'm still going with the Sigma. Having to deal with the variety of clients that I have, I can't afford to use a lens that adds its own "personality" to begin with. I need that "clinical", as-perfect-as-possible source material to work with, and I must find ways to add the 'art' into it in post, depending on the client's wishes. Funny, when you think of the name of the Sigma... :) But again: I get it. You're right.
Also please don't forget there's the price point. Most people will view the 50L as a higher priced item with very sub par performance compared to the sigma. Sometimes money dictate the art direction as well. Or in this case purchase decision.
Thank you for giving your verdict right off the bat. Really appreciate this style of presentation because I got tired of reviewers taking too long to get to the point. Props for an extremely helpful review.
Thats a huge lens for a 50mm 1.4, wow!!! Im pretty happy that mine 50mm is not that sharp, my clients likes it. For the razor sharpness, get the TS-E lenses ;-)
Dennis Renaissance I don't think you have tried the Sigma. My partner and I are wedidng photographers and we LOVE the dreamy Creamy look . Sigma gives that along with subject sharpness. The Canon is just soft and way over priced. But with the 85 f/1.2 from Canon, I can't imagine anyone beating that lens anytime soon.
As an ex-Canon user, there are two 85mm f/1.2 beaters currently: the Otus 85mm f/1.4 and also the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G lens. Both are sharper, both have an extra rounded aperture blade for bokeh softness, the Nikon has mount weather sealing, and it is a much more acceptable weight (the Canon is like a camera body attached at the front!). Image quality wide open of the Canon 1.2 (which I have owned) and at f/1.4 is not at the same standard as the other two, and only equalises as you stop down. In fact, the best sharpness range of the Canon 85 from what I could tell was f/5.6 - f/11, whilst the Nikon provides a much wider range of sharpness (from f/2.8) and the Otus is just the Otus (but manual focus). So, this is not entirely accurate in my view. Sigma, however, will be introducing an 85mm f/1.4 Art and I am getting excited about that, and I do utterly agree with you about the 35 and 50 Art lenses: Sigma have massively raised the bar and beaten the big boys at their game... which is s good thing, because it means Nikon and Canon both have to respond and do better!
Rumours are sigma are releasing an 85mm and 135mm Art lens, I hope so as I have recently bought the 35mm Art and and absolutely love it! excellent quality and excellent value
the 85L is like the prettier sister to the 50L. It's a bit nicer, but still seriously deficient. IQ on the edges are outright poor, CA is horrible as well. It's a little sharper than the 50L, however it's got a huge amount of background blur, which makes it highly desireable to some. I traded one in for a zeiss 100 makro planar.... and I think the zeiss just does so much better for portraits. Much much better contrast, which pops the image, and sharp edge to edge. I can confidently put someone anywhere on the frame wide open. I was just never happy with the edge performance, contrast, and CA of the 85L, just too much of it.
For the time being I've bought the canon 85mm 1.8 to keep me going until sigma release the 85mm art, I'm also after upgrading my 50mm now its going to have to be a 50mm sigma art its a no brainer
Neil Moger you cant compare 50mm to 85mm not a fair comparison lol its like comparing a wide angle lenses with Telephoto to tell you the truth l have a 70-200 V2 and 50mm sigma with the same framing there is no difference in sharpness and half the price
Now, there has been problems with the Sigma autofocus after about three months of use. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 has the autofocus motor that is very fragile. The lens is not very expensive but not something you would like to count on. People who buy the EF 1.2 normally know what they are going after and it is not the lithography sharpness so revered by the pixel peeping community. People who get the Sigma are ready to deal with the overweight to get the extra corner sharpness. My choice would be the Canon f/1.2 because of the absolutely fantastic stuff people have published using only this particular lens. Stardust...
they always empasize the superb build quality of these new sigma art series lens. but what I want to say from my experience, that these lens are so damn heavy that I often hesitate taking it for 2-3 hour shooting. it's bulky and uncomfortable to take with
I believe it all depends on what purpose you use the lens for. In my case 50 mm (on FF) is a great focal length for shooting 3/4 portraits of people. When using a wide aperture you usually want to blur out the background so less corner sharpness is usually a plus as it will render a more pleasing bokeh. I own the 50 1.2 and i was frustrated at this for a while maybe similarly to you .. until i realized that the lens is a specialty lens that serves this one purpose and is great at it. (also people don't want all their face imperfections in super sharp focus usually so the center sharpness between the 50 1.2 L and sigma 50 1.4 A might not be a deal breaker) For shooting scenes where you want more of your background things in focus a 35 will do a better job you can get people in their environments as the 35 will allow you to fit more of the scene in your frame and that is where you would possibly want more corner sharpness since the background might be important to the image. I own the 35 F2 IS and its pretty nice with regards to sharpness. If you want the 50 mm for landscape with lots of sharpness i think a tilt shift would be much better since you can set your focus plane to have everything in focus even at wide open apertures .. if you want that normal perspective i would go with the TS-E 45mm f/2.8 since it has almost the ideal "normal = human eye" focal length. I don't own one but i would look into one if i would be into super sharp landscape work. I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this as well as everyone else's. Thanks for your video.
I've the Sigma 50mm F 1.4 EX DG lens and it's an amazing lens. Very good quality and you can get very sharp photos with it. And as always great video Toby!
The Sigma has 13 lens elements vs 7 for the Canon 1.4 and 8 for the Canon 1.2. Undoubtedly, the sharpness is derived from the design, but since all lens design involves trade offs, what does the Sigma lose because of that? Most likely, color rendition and micro contrast as well as that dreamy look shooting wide open. You mentioned the 1/3 stop less light transmission as well. I am not even tempted. I'll keep my Canon 50MM 1.4.
I have been blown away with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art. I have to agree I have been more pleased with this lens versus the L glass. Its solid but it is heavy for a 50mm lens. They upped the game with this lens. Just wished it was weathered sealed.
For practical use no one will go dig for a small difference in sharpness in the photo. Especially not in the corners because people do not use 50mm prime lens to shoot a flat surface like in the test. The lens is for subject isolation and all the options here do a good enough job. However sigma's improved center sharpness is definitely worth having if you want absolutely the best optical performance without consideration of cost. I would probably not use it for the kind of money it is heavy, big and not weather sealed.
I have been wanting to upgrade from my Canon 50 1.8 Fantastic Plastic I had been looking at the canon 1.4 and also the older sigma 1.4 that both are around the $400 mark.. But I think I will save my money and get the 50 1.4 art version.. I have heard nothing but absolute amazing things about it... plus being more than $500 less than the canon 1.2
About to grab this Sigma 50 ART Photorec Toby. Gonna get the 16-35 F/4 and 50 ART. I'm not going for the 24-70 2.8 like I did last time. I seen with the test that the 16-35 F/4 is sharper with less CA for landscapes than the 2.8 version or the 24-70. I'm gonna skip the 24-70 this time and go 16-35, 50mm Art, already have 100mm F/2, want to get the 135 F/2. Probably won't get an 85. I like 50 and I like 100, 85 is one of those in the middle that I wouldn't ever use.
its unfortunate that so many people are unaware of exposure equivalencies. (1/3rd stop higher ISO comments) But at any rate, the Sigma seemed flawless until I saw that color fringing. but hey, thats what Post is for.. I can't wait for it to get off backorder so I grab one to pair with my 35 1.4 Art
Thanks for the review. I'm looking into buying the Sigma and found this helpful. One important issue that this video didn't address was that of chromatic aberration which is certainly an important consideration when dropping $1000 on a lens. What I noticed from you bokeh tests, particularly at the 10:59 mark, was that the white text printed on the Canon 1.2 was noticeably fringed pinkish purple. The 1.2 showed no signs of this, but the Canon 1.4 showed some purple fringing on the white text printed on the Canon 1.2. Is chromatic a major issue with the Sigma? At which aperture does it become a non-issue?
I notice very little Chromatic Aberration with the Sigma, it may be I have the lens profile in Lightroom and the little CA that is present is automatically removed on import. I own this lens, we actually have two copies in the house as we couldn't share at weddings well :) I can try to shoot some challenging test shots soon and post.
I have a Sigma 17-35 lens, to be fair, a great bit of kit, love it, for my 50mm, went with the Canon 1.4 but to get better sharpness, shoot it at a minimum of 1.8.
Weird question, what sort of table were you placing the lens on? Does it have wheels? Looks like something practical that I could use in my setup. Great video btw! Thanks!
This is totally BS. I have used this sigma lens and I can guarantee that you get more light using canon and contrast at lower ISO. There is sharpness difference when it comes to higher ISO but if you lower down the ISO up to 50 to 200 canon is clearly better and you get all the weather sealing you need. You also get more accurate color using canon.
I think if you are on a budget, instead of buying Canon's 50mm 1.4, will be a beter choice to buy Sigma's old 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. It's sharper, gives beautiful bokeh and costs nearly same price.
The canon 1.4 is a 25 year old lens. Canon 1.2 is 9 year old. Sigma is new. So one can understand the improvements. These third party lens companies should make canon come out with newer models faster.
I'm undecided on my next lens purchase. I have the canon 70d with the 17-55 kit lens, I just bought the canon 70-200 2.8 (live it!) and have a gap for something for closer shots. Would you recommend the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 if you could only buy one? I know they are different and you love primes so I'm guessing the Sigma. Thanks in advance.
You guessed right :) I have had bad experience with the Tamron and heard from enough people that I don't recommend it. I do also know people that are very happy with their copy. But there is no arguing that the 35 f/1.4 is lovely and so sharp. Maybe not quite as versatile as the 24-70 but it makes up for it in delicious bokeh.
Sam, i recently purchased the Tamron 27-70 f/2.8 VC for my 70D and i love it. It's a fantastic walk around lenses and i use it 90% of the time now for stills and video. I own the canon 50mm 1.8 and will upgrade to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 when i can afford it.. Then perhaps theTamrom 70-22 2.8. I guess you next lenses upgrade depends on what your shooting the most. Do you need the clarity of a prime or versatility of a zoom? and what light will you be mostly shooting in?
I am currently only using natural light. I am not a huge fan of flash and honestly, I am not comfortable using it because I don't know how to properly. (Video idea CameraRec Toby.....How to get started learning to use flash with remotes, for dummies). I am starting to shoot more portraits but also need the versatility to shoot scenes as well. I'm really torn which way to turn for my next lens. I'd like both but I can really only afford one at the moment. I might just have to buy the 35mm 1.4 Art lens simply for close up bokeh shots. I was going to buy the 1.8, but perhaps I should go straight to this. Then after some more saving, invest in a 24-70mm 2.8. Thanks for your advice.
Thanks for the excellent review. I've had my Simga 50 f/1.4 for about a week and am really enjoying it. I was happy to see your bokeh comparisions too as I was worried that perhaps the sigma, while sharp, might suffer in other less tangible ways compared to the Canons, like color rendition / contrast / etc. The images seem pretty much equivalent in those areas (do you agree?). I plan to use mine on both my 6D and 70D. One question...I still need a good wide angle...thinking about the Sigma 18-35 art f/1.8 for my 70D. Any thoughts on that combination? Or should I get a lens to use with the 6D (ff vs crop). I think I need just one more lens and I'm done for a good long while buying gear. :)
We have looked at many more images than shared in this video and I think the Sigma bokeh is better in most of them. I do think I would shy away from a crop sensor only lens, even one as good as the 18-35 if I was using both a crop and a full frame camera. What else do you have besides the 50mm f/1.4?
I have the 24-105 f/4 L lens from Canon, the 70-200 f/4L, the 400 f/5.6 L, the 100 mm f/2.8 L, and the Tamron 150-600mm. The 24-105 f/4 seems unsharp to me.
Anthony Martin The 24-105 is a decent but not spectacularly sharp lens. How do you like that Tamron? I want to get my hands on that for a review. First lens that comes to mind is the 16-35. the new f/4 version is VERY good. The older f/2.8 version is quite good with of course better aperture :)
The Tarmon is great, but I like it much more on a full frame body. Thanks for the rec on the 16-35 f/4. I think that will be all I need. I like that it is wider than 24mm too. Thanks.
Anthony Martin Thanks and you bet. Feel free to order from B&H www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html?BI=4773&KBID=5287
Great review! The Sigma looks like a great lens, interesting though that the shutter speed differs due to the lens coating. The Canon f1.4 looks to offer great value for money in comparison.
I agree, recently I had the opportunity to use the Canon 50mm 1.4 and I was quite impressed with it. I felt it was sharp enough wide open , but I did MA it and maybe it was a good copy. Coming from L lenses only, I was impressed on how quick it focused as well. Overall is obvious that the Canon 50mm 1.4 is the "runt" of the liter , but it's a good lens. I love using it with a 6D for a overall good set up.
Mrlolibre hannibalsmith101 I too am impressed with this 50mm f/1.4. We have two copies of the 50mm f/1.4 and one is bad, even after MA it is still soft.
Great review! I have the old version of the sigma 50 still. Had a chance to borrow the 1.2. Thought it was my dream lens and it was nothing but a let down to be honest. My old sigma still out performs it. Also noticed in the first comparison. Shutter speeds were different by 1/3 of a stop due to the ISO speeds also being 1/3 a stop different 😜. Great review. Thanks again. Need to pick up the art soon.
I rented this lens Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Canon and had a bit of focus issues, Super sharpness is not as important to me as is correct focus, the 50 1.4 Canon was also introduced way back in 1993! So hope Canon comes out with the successor to their 1.4 which I have now.
+David B Cossini What kind of issues? Did you adjust the camera and save the sigma as it's own profile? If it back focuses or front focuses you can't fix that easy. Unless you have an older camera that won't do it.
CameraRec Toby Have you used the older Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM at all? I am wondering how it compares to this Sigma Art version. The older one is running only $349 now (reduced by sigma $100 and another $50 by B & H) so its nearly 1/3 the price. Was wondering what your thoughts were on it.
Todd Davis Hi Todd - pretty significant differences. The old was just an OK lens, very similar in many respects to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in sharpness - that is to say, decent sharpness if you stop down from f/1.4 some. The Art version is on a whole different level - incredibly sharp wide open.
CameraRec Toby I just got one in the mail yesterday and I did some test shots and at 1.4 its almost unusably soft in the center and at the edges its just horrible. it doesn't get even useable until 2.8 and great at 5.6 but I guess I know why its on sale and they made a new one. Maybe its just my copy but if I spend the extra to get a 1.4 over a 1.8 I would want to at least be able to use 1.4 and 1.6... with my particular copy, its downright worthless at those apertures. Back to Nikkor I go. Thanks for your response.
I think I would still go with 50L. It is smaller, lighter, no color fringe, weather sealing and better bokeh. Super sharpness is not the most important thing for me in that kind of lens. But I'm still thinking...
I can just tell you that after years of shooting with the Canon 50 L we were very happy to switch to the Sigma- I don't see a difference in the bokeh and it is consistently sharper.
I was sold on the sigma, but I saw that on their website, they have a new version. Do you have any idea what this newer version offers or if it is still as good? the newer version is actually half the price as well O.O Let me know. Link to new Sigma: www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm
U start sayingvthat shutter speed is different and the canon lets in more light at same aperture... u failed to realise u are using different ISO speeds... u should at least setvthe ISO the same to make the test accurate...
My ISO is higher but it still works out to a 1/3 of a stop difference. We saw it every time when comparing the metadata between the two lenses. In the example at 5:23 ISO is 1/3 a stop higher on right and shutter speed is 2/3 a stop difference 160 to 200 to 250. Still a difference. Doesn't need to match. But yes, I wish I had been more careful in selecting the one I used in the video so I wouldn't have confused people. You aren't the only one to comment about this.
"If" we can look forward to the rumored layered sensor R&D coming to fruition in the 5D mark IV with it's lack of a bayer filter and AA filter can you imagine how this lens would rock as a combo?
Do you still feel this is the best choice for a Canon mount 4.5 years later. I mainly shoot weddings (and engagements) and considering this lens for my Canon 5D4 and (5D3 backup camera)...I was going to order one today, but thought I'd get your feedback first...Thanks.
Thank you for the helpful review. I was contemplating buying the Sigma and I was wondering if you needed to use the Sigma USB dock/ if you had any issues with the focusing with this lens?
hi buddy Ive bought brand new canon 5d mrk 4 , planning to buy a used 50 1.4 for 500 USD , Ive often heard reviewers saying about caliberation of lenses to canon , especially these 3rd party lenses , otherwise we dont get the autofocus properly . is this true ? should we caliberate the lenses to the body . at the moment ive the 3 L Series lenses 24-70 f2.8 mark ii 24-105 f4 mark ii (kit lens) 100 mm macr all these 3 lenses work perfectly with my 5d mark 4 and also 80 D (Which I Sold to buy mark 4 , 24-105F4 MARK II I got along with mark 4 ) Ive never done any caliberation to any of these lenses having said that , Ive never used any third party lenses, So little worried about autofocussing issues without caliberaing hope you clear my doubt about caliberation .
+Bill KIM you spend too much time on forums reading the experiences of a few photographers that get repeated over and over ad nauseum until it seem like it's more of a problem than it actually is.
I don't know what it is about you I like this much, but you got me subscibed man ! ( I never usually do ) Super straightforward no bullshit approach, I love it ! keep up the good work.
Hey Toby! Have you ran into focus issues with the Sigma lenses as time went one? People on this canon group page on say to not get it but all the reviews say this lens is stunning and the goods out weigh the bad.
+Jackson Nguyen We have now been using for a full year and while there seem to be some occasional focus issues I can't attribute that to lens only- I have also seen issues with the older Canon 35mm too - so I am still happy to recommend these lenses. I think the Internet is making a big deal about a few isolated incidents.
Canon 1.4 is sharp in the middle, smaller and $500 less. If Im not a pro do you still recommend the sigma over Canon 1.4? I just dont like the size and weight of the sigma.
+Hermes Ortega I'd actually recommend the 50mm f/1.8 STM before the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - the f/1.4 isn't a bad lens I just don't find it sharper than the f/1.8 and feel folks would be better saving some $$$ unless they REALLY need, want that extra bit of light the f/1.4 provides.
Nice, but $$, Id buy one based on your review if I would use it everyday. But what do you think of lens extenders? And a good prime lens around the $400?
A good prime around $400 - the 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma art 30mm f/1.4 (you on a crop sensor) Lens extenders for telephoto- Mini Review: Canon 2x Extender, more zoom!! 3rd party ones are not worth it.
The price has dropped significantly in the last few years - many of the Canon lenses are discounted nicely. The competition from Sigma has been good :)
I'm a new to photography and own a canon 700d and bought a sigma 50mm 1.4 art then realized after I received the lens the maximum magnification ratio of 1:5.6 makes the lens 78mm and I should of bought the 35mm version ... oh well
What is the best lens for capturing small objects or very close to objects? Is it 40mm f/2.8 or sigma 50mm f/1.4..? I also heard about sigma 30mm? Is it also advisable to my concern? Will appreciate your suggestion. Thanks in advance..
Dear Toby Thanks for sharing this video. Have you tested an Otus 55 or 85?? If yes.. how would you rate this Art against an Otus 55 ?? Please share your experience. Cheers.
Hi, thanks for your videos. A quick question. I've just purchased the canon 700d with 18-55 kit lens (following your advice!). I'm looking to buy a good introductory/ affordable 50mm lens for portrait shots etc. I've been looking at Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens as a slightly cheaper option than those you've reviewed above. Any advice on this lens? Experience? Better alternatives? Cheers!
Nice review and very helpful...Have you had a chance to try the Sigma 85mm 1.4? It's not an Art series, but I heard it's very sharp...I was looking for an 85mm, until seeing this review and may consider the 50mm instead to use on my 5D3...Any thoughts on the 50 vs the 85? I mainly do weddings, engagement shoots (outdoors), maternity shoots, etc...Thanks....Philip
Uptown Photography Thanks - I have not tried the 85mm but have also heard good things. I hear a rumor that they will come out with an ART 85mm next year too. I really like the 50mm f/1.4 as a versatile all around lens for wedding work. The 85mm is a little better for tighter portraits. I really like the 50mm paired with the 70-200 f/2. - that is a killer combination with lots of versatility. Between the 50mm and the 85mm right now I would get the 50mm and wait for the 85mm ART
CameraRec Toby Thanks for the reply...I actually almost bought a 70-200mm last night from B&H, but I'd like to get the 50mm right now too, so I am waiting a bit.... (I think your advice is correct, I'll wait for the 85mm Art to be released next year), so you have convinced me the 50mm is the way to go right now.as your review is very detailed..Besides the 5D3, I also have a 70D, so that would make it an 80mm lens on the cropped sensor, so perhaps I really get the best of both worlds by buying the 50mm...Philip
Susan Nelson No - the other settings were adjusted to compensate and create a valid exposure comparable to the others. We have been using two copies of the sigma now for months and they are just fantastic.
I asked , you answered (not that you made the video just for me). Thanks for the info. Ill be watching the video a few more times so it sinks in and i can figure out what to buy or borrow for my first prime lense. Acually, my first non kit lense. Sounds like the 35mm or 50mm will be the best for my 70D when walking around SF. Thanks agian.
I'd personally like to walk around with the 35mm. But honestly I also really like that lovely little 40mm f/2.8 for walk around work and lightweight travel.
For a good walk around have a look at the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.. Totally awesome if you can afford the $1,000 for it. And 1/2 the cost of the canon L series it competes against, and it;s 95% of the quality.
I'm still thinking if I should go for the 50mm L or 50mm ART. I own the 35mm ART and love it, but with very unstable weather conditions here and the possibility of beach sessions, with 50mm being my favourite and first choice portrait lens, I am a bit worried bout the lack of sealing in Sigma. At the moment that's the only thing stopping me from shopping. Any advice? Please... :)
Kasia My Full House a cheap plastic bag around the lens can easily do all the weatherproofing of the 50mm f/1.2 from Canon :) Also - would you really be shooting in the rain or you can just quickly put the camera away. Can you tell I am leaning toward the sigma ;)
PhotoRec Toby Yes I can, Toby and I can clearly hear it watching your film.The point is - I was leaning toward the Sigma and actually decided to get it but then I got second thoughts, read some more reviews and... changed my mind, was even thinking to get the Canon next week. Then, I come across your film and here I am - on the crossroad again! Plastic bag does not sound too professional but I get the point, especially when you claim that the Sigma is sharper and the AF is more reliable and - let's be frank, this rain issue is not an every day problem. Plus, that would leave me money for the Speedlite that I need anyway.. LOL I will let you know what I decide :)
What f/1.4 prime lens would you recommend for a beginner photographer (max $500 USD)? Mainly for portrait (some action) shots at my church/youth group events.
CameraRec Toby Thanks for the quick reply. I take it the focus issues you mention on the Sigma are independent of the camera? I'm using a 70D. The 50mm is fairly narrow but is usable, just have to get back far enough from the subjects.
Shame. This guy doesn't understand the 'look' that the L 50 makes. Pixel peepers won't ever be happy with the 50L - portraits look more flattening with the L hands down.
Thanks for the review. How would you compare the Sigma 35mm Art to the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art for those looking for the 50mm full frame equivalent on a crop sensor body?
If you know you will be shooting on a crop sensor for awhile the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is VERY sharp - very similar in quality to the Sigma 35m f/1.8. A little more distortion but you get a more versatile lens.
I am seriously considering this lens to use with a Canon 5D4. Do you still feel the same way about this 50mm ART now that it is 4.5 years later? It would be very helpful to me. thanks....
@@photorectoby Thanks. As always, your replies appreciated. Keep up the good work. If you're ever in the NYC area, give a shout out for a cup of coffee or a shoot.......
Great vids. I have learned a lot from your channel. For a first lens with a D7100, would you recommend one of the art lenses (I was thinking Sigma 35mm f1.4) or the more versatile, and expensive, Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8? Right now I want to shoot my dogs, travel stuff, and basic landscapes. $$ isn't necessarily a concern as I know glass is an investment. Thanks again for your time!
Hi Adam, I love primes and I feel everyone should have at least one but I don't necessarily think it is the best and/or first option. I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 24-105 f/4 IS for your first lens. later add the 35mm f/1.4.
CameraRec Toby Thanks. Do you have any experience with the sigma 24-105? I've seen really positive things about the Nikon 24-70, just cant find that much info on the sigma. Thanks again.
Adam Martin I haven't used the Sigma 24-105 but reviewers I trust praise it highly and I have been recommending it. If you don't mind f/4 it is a great lens - VERY sharp.
CameraRec Toby Thanks. Have you used the Nikon 24-70? I have seen really good things about it, but couldn't find a video with your review. Plus, I trust your opinion more than other reviewers =) Worth the extra $$?
But which is better if I am fan of taking pictures of a small objects? Any suggestion? Is it lens 40mm f/2.8 or sigma 50mm.. I also heard about sigma 30mm.. I'm confused..
+machia0705 If you say so.. Rather than giving your opinion, why not SHOW us. Where are your comparison images to back your claims? If you don't have any then you are just another internet commenter.
I've never posted on RUclips . Tell me how to do it and I will share them with you ! Rokkor glass was excellent . Even used by LEICA . Minolta was never regarded as a serious camera system but it was in my opinion second to none .
machia0705 I never realised Minolta wasn't taken seriously. In the film days I always thought of Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax as the big 4 (not necessarily in that order) out of the mainstream 35mm manufacturers. I preferred Minolta to Nikon, but Canon was my favourite. A friend of mine had a Minolta SRT101 and I borrowed his handbook to learn about apertures and shutter speeds. That manual then set me on the path to reading everything I could get my hands on and becoming a photographer. At one stage I owned a Minolta Dynax 7 with an off-camera flash setup and it had a razor sharp lens (I think it was a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 from memory). I have a Minolta Dynax 5 in a cupboard somewhere, still in brand new condition. Don't worry about uploading images just for me, but if you ever need to do so it is best to upload them to some web space you have and give people a link.
Hi, I'm looking at this lense for video work on a gh4 with a speedbooster. on slr lounges video review they talk about how much this lense breathes when you pull focus. Have you noticed this. In the clip they show its a tremendous amount but I've not heard or seen this anywhere else.
Spencer Moret?authuser=1 I have heard this too and keep meaning to play some, give me a shout in a day or too - best place is on my FB page @Digital.Photo.Recommendations and I will do my best to post a sample or at least share my findings.
I think they are simply too big and too expensive. I'm more then happy with my 50 1.8, and wont ever upgrade. The quality of my pics are awesome. Don't need to zoom in 100x too see if a picture is sharp, if its sharp the way it was taken guess what... its sharp.
I mam not a fan of zooming to 100% in photos either but when being paid to take photos I want to make sure I get my money's worth and being able to save $500 and get a sharper lens - easy decision :)
@@photorectoby For that kind of money... might want to consider the Sigma 24-70mm zoom f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon EF. $1299.00 // or the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon EF... $1099. Both at B&H Photo.
The Sigma 50/1.4 is sharp and clean. Much sharper and cleaner than the Canon 50L. Having owned both, my conclusion is: the Canon 50L is a much better lens. It does something that the Sigma cannot do - it injects personality and character into photographs. The 8-straight aperture blades create bokeh that the clinical Sigma cannot ever match. The 1.2 aperture isolates subject matter with a softness and beauty that the 1.4 cannot get close to. The distortion and vignetting help emphasize the subject and pull it toward you out of the frame. It has contrast, it renders colour beautifully, it somehow magically softens skin tones and makes people better looking. It does this without fuss or hassle - it is fast, weather sealed, and any unwanted abberations (of which there are very few) are eliminated in Lightroom with a mouse-click.
Reviews like this are helpful - they tell you what is objectively a technically better lens on paper. But on paper tests are only one part of the picture, and it is disappointing that this is not discussed in detail.
Canon never made the 50L to destroy all MTF charts. They made the 50L so that people can take beautiful photos. Sigma doesn't understand this, neither do many other lens manufacturers (looking at you too, Sony). When you make glass that sets MTF benchmarks, you add more elements, more coatings, and more complexity, that ultimately destroy any character a lens would otherwise have.
We are facing a world of modern technically excellent but emotionally fucking dead glass. What a shit world that will be. I'm sure the 100 megapixel Sony a8 with 18 blade aperture 22 element zeiss 50mm 1.4 lens will take photos without any vignetting or distortion, but it will also render a depressingly average, bland and flat photograph. Perfect for surveillance cameras, NASA missions, or driverless cars, but not for beautiful photography.
Fuck modern lenses - they are all basically shit. No wonder people are snapping up Polaroid cameras and old film stock - we are desperate for some fucking personality.
Sincerely,
Former disgruntled owner of multiple perfect Sigma Art lenses and current happy owner of some of the shittest glass in the world.
I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. Having said that, I'm still going with the Sigma. Having to deal with the variety of clients that I have, I can't afford to use a lens that adds its own "personality" to begin with. I need that "clinical", as-perfect-as-possible source material to work with, and I must find ways to add the 'art' into it in post, depending on the client's wishes. Funny, when you think of the name of the Sigma... :)
But again: I get it. You're right.
Because some lenses are made to take picture, some others are created to shoot test chart
Also please don't forget there's the price point. Most people will view the 50L as a higher priced item with very sub par performance compared to the sigma. Sometimes money dictate the art direction as well. Or in this case purchase decision.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you for giving your verdict right off the bat. Really appreciate this style of presentation because I got tired of reviewers taking too long to get to the point. Props for an extremely helpful review.
I liked and subbed just because of his format. I hope he reads this feedback and continues to follow.
Why would you shoot ISO 640 when comparing lens sharpness? Seems to me that ISO 100 would be the right choice. Thanks for the review though :)
ISO 100 isn't the be all end all. Some cameras perform better at slightly higher ISO
@@The_Crooked_Path 640 isn't slightly higher.
@@djkoti74 well it is. And in the case of the Canon R6, ISO 100 is noiser than ISO 400 and ISO 400 is seen to be the minimum usable ISO
Thats a huge lens for a 50mm 1.4, wow!!! Im pretty happy that mine 50mm is not that sharp, my clients likes it. For the razor sharpness, get the TS-E lenses ;-)
That different shutter speed difference you're talking about at the beginning is caused by different ISO in my opinion.
Dennis Renaissance I don't think you have tried the Sigma. My partner and I are wedidng photographers and we LOVE the dreamy Creamy look . Sigma gives that along with subject sharpness. The Canon is just soft and way over priced. But with the 85 f/1.2 from Canon, I can't imagine anyone beating that lens anytime soon.
As an ex-Canon user, there are two 85mm f/1.2 beaters currently: the Otus 85mm f/1.4 and also the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G lens. Both are sharper, both have an extra rounded aperture blade for bokeh softness, the Nikon has mount weather sealing, and it is a much more acceptable weight (the Canon is like a camera body attached at the front!). Image quality wide open of the Canon 1.2 (which I have owned) and at f/1.4 is not at the same standard as the other two, and only equalises as you stop down. In fact, the best sharpness range of the Canon 85 from what I could tell was f/5.6 - f/11, whilst the Nikon provides a much wider range of sharpness (from f/2.8) and the Otus is just the Otus (but manual focus). So, this is not entirely accurate in my view. Sigma, however, will be introducing an 85mm f/1.4 Art and I am getting excited about that, and I do utterly agree with you about the 35 and 50 Art lenses: Sigma have massively raised the bar and beaten the big boys at their game... which is s good thing, because it means Nikon and Canon both have to respond and do better!
Rumours are sigma are releasing an 85mm and 135mm Art lens, I hope so as I have recently bought the 35mm Art and and absolutely love it! excellent quality and excellent value
the 85L is like the prettier sister to the 50L. It's a bit nicer, but still seriously deficient. IQ on the edges are outright poor, CA is horrible as well. It's a little sharper than the 50L, however it's got a huge amount of background blur, which makes it highly desireable to some. I traded one in for a zeiss 100 makro planar.... and I think the zeiss just does so much better for portraits. Much much better contrast, which pops the image, and sharp edge to edge. I can confidently put someone anywhere on the frame wide open. I was just never happy with the edge performance, contrast, and CA of the 85L, just too much of it.
For the time being I've bought the canon 85mm 1.8 to keep me going until sigma release the 85mm art, I'm also after upgrading my 50mm now its going to have to be a 50mm sigma art its a no brainer
Neil Moger you cant compare 50mm to 85mm not a fair comparison lol its like comparing a wide angle lenses with Telephoto to tell you the truth l have a 70-200 V2 and 50mm sigma with the same framing there is no difference in sharpness and half the price
Now, there has been problems with the Sigma autofocus after about three months of use. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 has the autofocus motor that is very fragile. The lens is not very expensive but not something you would like to count on. People who buy the EF 1.2 normally know what they are going after and it is not the lithography sharpness so revered by the pixel peeping community. People who get the Sigma are ready to deal with the overweight to get the extra corner sharpness.
My choice would be the Canon f/1.2 because of the absolutely fantastic stuff people have published using only this particular lens. Stardust...
Nopeeeeeeee, Sigma for broke community
I preferred the 1.2 lenses in the bokah comparison at the end. I have the lens and feel it is the right choice for me
they always empasize the superb build quality of these new sigma art series lens. but what I want to say from my experience, that these lens are so damn heavy that I often hesitate taking it for 2-3 hour shooting. it's bulky and uncomfortable to take with
Very true forget about a gimbal smh
I believe it all depends on what purpose you use the lens for. In my case 50 mm (on FF) is a great focal length for shooting 3/4 portraits of people. When using a wide aperture you usually want to blur out the background so less corner sharpness is usually a plus as it will render a more pleasing bokeh. I own the 50 1.2 and i was frustrated at this for a while maybe similarly to you .. until i realized that the lens is a specialty lens that serves this one purpose and is great at it. (also people don't want all their face imperfections in super sharp focus usually so the center sharpness between the 50 1.2 L and sigma 50 1.4 A might not be a deal breaker)
For shooting scenes where you want more of your background things in focus a 35 will do a better job you can get people in their environments as the 35 will allow you to fit more of the scene in your frame and that is where you would possibly want more corner sharpness since the background might be important to the image. I own the 35 F2 IS and its pretty nice with regards to sharpness.
If you want the 50 mm for landscape with lots of sharpness i think a tilt shift would be much better since you can set your focus plane to have everything in focus even at wide open apertures .. if you want that normal perspective i would go with the TS-E 45mm f/2.8 since it has almost the ideal "normal = human eye" focal length. I don't own one but i would look into one if i would be into super sharp landscape work.
I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this as well as everyone else's.
Thanks for your video.
I've the Sigma 50mm F 1.4 EX DG lens and it's an amazing lens. Very good quality and you can get very sharp photos with it. And as always great video Toby!
The Sigma has 13 lens elements vs 7 for the Canon 1.4 and 8 for the Canon 1.2. Undoubtedly, the sharpness is derived from the design, but since all lens design involves trade offs, what does the Sigma lose because of that? Most likely, color rendition and micro contrast as well as that dreamy look shooting wide open. You mentioned the 1/3 stop less light transmission as well. I am not even tempted. I'll keep my Canon 50MM 1.4.
I have been blown away with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art. I have to agree I have been more pleased with this lens versus the L glass. Its solid but it is heavy for a 50mm lens. They upped the game with this lens. Just wished it was weathered sealed.
For practical use no one will go dig for a small difference in sharpness in the photo. Especially not in the corners because people do not use 50mm prime lens to shoot a flat surface like in the test. The lens is for subject isolation and all the options here do a good enough job. However sigma's improved center sharpness is definitely worth having if you want absolutely the best optical performance without consideration of cost. I would probably not use it for the kind of money it is heavy, big and not weather sealed.
Good point and I agree!
PhotoRec Toby shutter speed difference is because you have ISO160 on Canon 1,4 and ISO125 on Sigma - thus 3rd of a stop difference
sasatrif Yes - that example was a little off but I saw others that showed some difference in exposure at the same settings.
PhotoRec Toby I see that now, sorry for my hasty response :)
I have been wanting to upgrade from my Canon 50 1.8 Fantastic Plastic
I had been looking at the canon 1.4 and also the older sigma 1.4 that both are around the $400 mark.. But I think I will save my money and get the 50 1.4 art version.. I have heard nothing but absolute amazing things about it... plus being more than $500 less than the canon 1.2
great review ... thank you for the efforts
About to grab this Sigma 50 ART Photorec Toby. Gonna get the 16-35 F/4 and 50 ART. I'm not going for the 24-70 2.8 like I did last time. I seen with the test that the 16-35 F/4 is sharper with less CA for landscapes than the 2.8 version or the 24-70. I'm gonna skip the 24-70 this time and go 16-35, 50mm Art, already have 100mm F/2, want to get the 135 F/2. Probably won't get an 85. I like 50 and I like 100, 85 is one of those in the middle that I wouldn't ever use.
its unfortunate that so many people are unaware of exposure equivalencies. (1/3rd stop higher ISO comments) But at any rate, the Sigma seemed flawless until I saw that color fringing.
but hey, thats what Post is for.. I can't wait for it to get off backorder so I grab one to pair with my 35 1.4 Art
+Daniel Stewart if you want flawless you have to pay a few extra thousand for the Otus!
As always, thank you for your informative reviews. I've noticed that your overall video quality is much fancier, I like it!
Thank you.
Thanks for the review. I'm looking into buying the Sigma and found this helpful. One important issue that this video didn't address was that of chromatic aberration which is certainly an important consideration when dropping $1000 on a lens. What I noticed from you bokeh tests, particularly at the 10:59 mark, was that the white text printed on the Canon 1.2 was noticeably fringed pinkish purple. The 1.2 showed no signs of this, but the Canon 1.4 showed some purple fringing on the white text printed on the Canon 1.2. Is chromatic a major issue with the Sigma? At which aperture does it become a non-issue?
I notice very little Chromatic Aberration with the Sigma, it may be I have the lens profile in Lightroom and the little CA that is present is automatically removed on import. I own this lens, we actually have two copies in the house as we couldn't share at weddings well :) I can try to shoot some challenging test shots soon and post.
I have a Sigma 17-35 lens, to be fair, a great bit of kit, love it, for my 50mm, went with the Canon 1.4 but to get better sharpness, shoot it at a minimum of 1.8.
Good call. The more affordable fast lenses always do a little better stopped down from wide open.
Weird question, what sort of table were you placing the lens on? Does it have wheels? Looks like something practical that I could use in my setup. Great video btw! Thanks!
The reveal that is the reason why I really enjoy watching your videos and always give you a thumbs up... keep them coming!!!
This is totally BS. I have used this sigma lens and I can guarantee that you get more light using canon and contrast at lower ISO. There is sharpness difference when it comes to higher ISO but if you lower down the ISO up to 50 to 200 canon is clearly better and you get all the weather sealing you need. You also get more accurate color using canon.
I think if you are on a budget, instead of buying Canon's 50mm 1.4, will be a beter choice to buy Sigma's old 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. It's sharper, gives beautiful bokeh and costs nearly same price.
Just bought the Sigma ART 50mm 1.4 and it is worth every penny so far. Bokeh is yummy!
Jacques Gaines still worth it?
The canon 1.4 is a 25 year old lens. Canon 1.2 is 9 year old. Sigma is new. So one can understand the improvements.
These third party lens companies should make canon come out with newer models faster.
Ya... You would think that Canon would update their most popular lenses after 15-20 years. Would be nice.
I'm undecided on my next lens purchase. I have the canon 70d with the 17-55 kit lens, I just bought the canon 70-200 2.8 (live it!) and have a gap for something for closer shots. Would you recommend the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 if you could only buy one? I know they are different and you love primes so I'm guessing the Sigma. Thanks in advance.
You guessed right :) I have had bad experience with the Tamron and heard from enough people that I don't recommend it. I do also know people that are very happy with their copy. But there is no arguing that the 35 f/1.4 is lovely and so sharp. Maybe not quite as versatile as the 24-70 but it makes up for it in delicious bokeh.
Sam, i recently purchased the Tamron 27-70 f/2.8 VC for my 70D and i love it. It's a fantastic walk around lenses and i use it 90% of the time now for stills and video. I own the canon 50mm 1.8 and will upgrade to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 when i can afford it.. Then perhaps theTamrom 70-22 2.8.
I guess you next lenses upgrade depends on what your shooting the most. Do you need the clarity of a prime or versatility of a zoom? and what light will you be mostly shooting in?
I am currently only using natural light. I am not a huge fan of flash and honestly, I am not comfortable using it because I don't know how to properly. (Video idea CameraRec Toby.....How to get started learning to use flash with remotes, for dummies). I am starting to shoot more portraits but also need the versatility to shoot scenes as well. I'm really torn which way to turn for my next lens. I'd like both but I can really only afford one at the moment. I might just have to buy the 35mm 1.4 Art lens simply for close up bokeh shots. I was going to buy the 1.8, but perhaps I should go straight to this. Then after some more saving, invest in a 24-70mm 2.8. Thanks for your advice.
Thanks for the excellent review. I've had my Simga 50 f/1.4 for about a week and am really enjoying it. I was happy to see your bokeh comparisions too as I was worried that perhaps the sigma, while sharp, might suffer in other less tangible ways compared to the Canons, like color rendition / contrast / etc. The images seem pretty much equivalent in those areas (do you agree?). I plan to use mine on both my 6D and 70D. One question...I still need a good wide angle...thinking about the Sigma 18-35 art f/1.8 for my 70D. Any thoughts on that combination? Or should I get a lens to use with the 6D (ff vs crop). I think I need just one more lens and I'm done for a good long while buying gear. :)
We have looked at many more images than shared in this video and I think the Sigma bokeh is better in most of them. I do think I would shy away from a crop sensor only lens, even one as good as the 18-35 if I was using both a crop and a full frame camera. What else do you have besides the 50mm f/1.4?
I have the 24-105 f/4 L lens from Canon, the 70-200 f/4L, the 400 f/5.6 L, the 100 mm f/2.8 L, and the Tamron 150-600mm. The 24-105 f/4 seems unsharp to me.
Anthony Martin The 24-105 is a decent but not spectacularly sharp lens. How do you like that Tamron? I want to get my hands on that for a review. First lens that comes to mind is the 16-35. the new f/4 version is VERY good. The older f/2.8 version is quite good with of course better aperture :)
The Tarmon is great, but I like it much more on a full frame body. Thanks for the rec on the 16-35 f/4. I think that will be all I need. I like that it is wider than 24mm too. Thanks.
Anthony Martin Thanks and you bet. Feel free to order from B&H www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html?BI=4773&KBID=5287
Great review! The Sigma looks like a great lens, interesting though that the shutter speed differs due to the lens coating. The Canon f1.4 looks to offer great value for money in comparison.
I agree, recently I had the opportunity to use the Canon 50mm 1.4 and I was quite impressed with it. I felt it was sharp enough wide open , but I did MA it and maybe it was a good copy. Coming from L lenses only, I was impressed on how quick it focused as well. Overall is obvious that the Canon 50mm 1.4 is the "runt" of the liter , but it's a good lens. I love using it with a 6D for a overall good set up.
Mrlolibre hannibalsmith101 I too am impressed with this 50mm f/1.4. We have two copies of the 50mm f/1.4 and one is bad, even after MA it is still soft.
Thanks for the review. I really enjoy it. I will buy the 35mm 1.4 ART.
Great review! I have the old version of the sigma 50 still. Had a chance to borrow the 1.2. Thought it was my dream lens and it was nothing but a let down to be honest. My old sigma still out performs it. Also noticed in the first comparison. Shutter speeds were different by 1/3 of a stop due to the ISO speeds also being 1/3 a stop different 😜. Great review. Thanks again. Need to pick up the art soon.
I rented this lens Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Canon and had a bit of focus issues, Super sharpness is not as important to me as is correct focus, the 50 1.4 Canon was also introduced way back in 1993! So hope Canon comes out with the successor to their 1.4 which I have now.
+David B Cossini What kind of issues? Did you adjust the camera and save the sigma as it's own profile? If it back focuses or front focuses you can't fix that easy. Unless you have an older camera that won't do it.
Yeah, i really want to buy the sigma, its incredibly sharp. Thanks for the review!
Super great review! Love to see the zoomed in comparisons! Helped me a lot doing my choice
CameraRec Toby Have you used the older Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM at all? I am wondering how it compares to this Sigma Art version. The older one is running only $349 now (reduced by sigma $100 and another $50 by B & H) so its nearly 1/3 the price. Was wondering what your thoughts were on it.
Todd Davis Hi Todd - pretty significant differences. The old was just an OK lens, very similar in many respects to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in sharpness - that is to say, decent sharpness if you stop down from f/1.4 some. The Art version is on a whole different level - incredibly sharp wide open.
CameraRec Toby I just got one in the mail yesterday and I did some test shots and at 1.4 its almost unusably soft in the center and at the edges its just horrible. it doesn't get even useable until 2.8 and great at 5.6 but I guess I know why its on sale and they made a new one.
Maybe its just my copy but if I spend the extra to get a 1.4 over a 1.8 I would want to at least be able to use 1.4 and 1.6... with my particular copy, its downright worthless at those apertures. Back to Nikkor I go. Thanks for your response.
I think I would still go with 50L. It is smaller, lighter, no color fringe, weather sealing and better bokeh. Super sharpness is not the most important thing for me in that kind of lens. But I'm still thinking...
I can just tell you that after years of shooting with the Canon 50 L we were very happy to switch to the Sigma- I don't see a difference in the bokeh and it is consistently sharper.
Great video Toby. I have the older Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM is it worth upgrading to the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens? Thx
I was sold on the sigma, but I saw that on their website, they have a new version. Do you have any idea what this newer version offers or if it is still as good? the newer version is actually half the price as well O.O Let me know.
Link to new Sigma: www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm
Michael Simoes-McArtor not Art series wouldnt go near it
U start sayingvthat shutter speed is different and the canon lets in more light at same aperture... u failed to realise u are using different ISO speeds... u should at least setvthe ISO the same to make the test accurate...
My ISO is higher but it still works out to a 1/3 of a stop difference. We saw it every time when comparing the metadata between the two lenses. In the example at 5:23 ISO is 1/3 a stop higher on right and shutter speed is 2/3 a stop difference 160 to 200 to 250. Still a difference. Doesn't need to match. But yes, I wish I had been more careful in selecting the one I used in the video so I wouldn't have confused people. You aren't the only one to comment about this.
"If" we can look forward to the rumored layered sensor R&D coming to fruition in the 5D mark IV with it's lack of a bayer filter and AA filter can you imagine how this lens would rock as a combo?
great review,
BUT what about color rendition and contrast which one is better? after all sharpness is not everything.
thanks
Yay! My heart skipped a beat when I heard your verdict!! Thanks so much for the review!!
Great comparison video, thanks for going in to detail!
Do you still feel this is the best choice for a Canon mount 4.5 years later. I mainly shoot weddings (and engagements) and considering this lens for my Canon 5D4 and (5D3 backup camera)...I was going to order one today, but thought I'd get your feedback first...Thanks.
Thank you for the helpful review. I was contemplating buying the Sigma and I was wondering if you needed to use the Sigma USB dock/ if you had any issues with the focusing with this lens?
What do u think about the Sigma's bokeh? Is it worth to change to the Canon 50mm 1.4?
hi buddy Ive bought brand new canon 5d mrk 4 , planning to buy a used 50 1.4 for 500 USD , Ive often heard reviewers saying about caliberation of lenses to canon , especially these 3rd party lenses , otherwise we dont get the autofocus properly .
is this true ? should we caliberate the lenses to the body .
at the moment ive the 3 L Series lenses
24-70 f2.8 mark ii
24-105 f4 mark ii (kit lens)
100 mm macr
all these 3 lenses work perfectly with my 5d mark 4 and also 80 D (Which I Sold to buy mark 4 , 24-105F4 MARK II I got along with mark 4 )
Ive never done any caliberation to any of these lenses
having said that , Ive never used any third party lenses, So little worried about autofocussing issues without caliberaing
hope you clear my doubt about caliberation .
Toby! Best intro music you have had so far! I love your videos but the past music really bothered me. Stick with this!
Thanks John!
focus consistency sigma is better? This is first time I hear this sort of statement
+Bill KIM you spend too much time on forums reading the experiences of a few photographers that get repeated over and over ad nauseum until it seem like it's more of a problem than it actually is.
The problems with the art series are pretty common... it's a massive problem that can't be calibrated with Sigma's USB dock or AFMA on your camera.
I don't know what it is about you I like this much, but you got me subscibed man ! ( I never usually do )
Super straightforward no bullshit approach, I love it ! keep up the good work.
Theo Josephovitch Thanks man.
Hey Toby! Have you ran into focus issues with the Sigma lenses as time went one? People on this canon group page on say to not get it but all the reviews say this lens is stunning and the goods out weigh the bad.
+Jackson Nguyen We have now been using for a full year and while there seem to be some occasional focus issues I can't attribute that to lens only- I have also seen issues with the older Canon 35mm too - so I am still happy to recommend these lenses. I think the Internet is making a big deal about a few isolated incidents.
Do they all work well on a full frame camera with aperture maximum open?
Canon 1.4 is sharp in the middle, smaller and $500 less. If Im not a pro do you still recommend the sigma over Canon 1.4? I just dont like the size and weight of the sigma.
+Hermes Ortega I'd actually recommend the 50mm f/1.8 STM before the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - the f/1.4 isn't a bad lens I just don't find it sharper than the f/1.8 and feel folks would be better saving some $$$ unless they REALLY need, want that extra bit of light the f/1.4 provides.
Nice, but $$, Id buy one based on your review if I would use it everyday. But what do you think of lens extenders? And a good prime lens around the $400?
A good prime around $400 - the 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma art 30mm f/1.4 (you on a crop sensor) Lens extenders for telephoto- Mini Review: Canon 2x Extender, more zoom!! 3rd party ones are not worth it.
Really helpful, thanks for making these!!
i paid £490.00 second hand for my Canon EF 50mm F1.2L and is boxed and in good condition
The price has dropped significantly in the last few years - many of the Canon lenses are discounted nicely. The competition from Sigma has been good :)
Hi,CameraRec Toby between vintage lens , vivitar 28 f2.0 Ai or nikon 28mm f2.8, which is better for nikon D7100 for price and perfromance
I'm a new to photography and own a canon 700d and bought a sigma 50mm 1.4 art then realized after I received the lens the maximum magnification ratio of 1:5.6 makes the lens 78mm and I should of bought the 35mm version ... oh well
i can't wait till Sigma puts out a 14-24mm 2.8 wide angle lens for Canon!
What is the best lens for capturing small objects or very close to objects? Is it 40mm f/2.8 or sigma 50mm f/1.4..? I also heard about sigma 30mm? Is it also advisable to my concern?
Will appreciate your suggestion. Thanks in advance..
Please only comment with the same question once.
Great job Toby, Sigma designed and built an excellent lens.
The volume is off at the end. :-)
I missed a channel at the end :( Some day I will publish a perfect video. . someday. . .
Dear Toby Thanks for sharing this video. Have you tested an Otus 55 or 85?? If yes.. how would you rate this Art against an Otus 55 ?? Please share your experience. Cheers.
+Michael David I haven't done those tests yet.
Hi, thanks for your videos. A quick question. I've just purchased the canon 700d with 18-55 kit lens (following your advice!). I'm looking to buy a good introductory/ affordable 50mm lens for portrait shots etc. I've been looking at Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens as a slightly cheaper option than those you've reviewed above.
Any advice on this lens? Experience? Better alternatives?
Cheers!
It is a great first prime lens. if you want a slightly wider prime the 40mm STM is great.
can you recommend this lens Sigma 50m with the Nikon D500 (corp sensor body) for landscape?
Nice review and very helpful...Have you had a chance to try the Sigma 85mm 1.4? It's not an Art series, but I heard it's very sharp...I was looking for an 85mm, until seeing this review and may consider the 50mm instead to use on my 5D3...Any thoughts on the 50 vs the 85? I mainly do weddings, engagement shoots (outdoors), maternity shoots, etc...Thanks....Philip
Uptown Photography Thanks - I have not tried the 85mm but have also heard good things. I hear a rumor that they will come out with an ART 85mm next year too. I really like the 50mm f/1.4 as a versatile all around lens for wedding work. The 85mm is a little better for tighter portraits. I really like the 50mm paired with the 70-200 f/2. - that is a killer combination with lots of versatility. Between the 50mm and the 85mm right now I would get the 50mm and wait for the 85mm ART
CameraRec Toby
Thanks for the reply...I actually almost bought a 70-200mm last night from B&H, but I'd like to get the 50mm right now too, so I am waiting a bit.... (I think your advice is correct, I'll wait for the 85mm Art to be released next year), so you have convinced me the 50mm is the way to go right now.as your review is very detailed..Besides the 5D3, I also have a 70D, so that would make it an 80mm lens on the cropped sensor, so perhaps I really get the best of both worlds by buying the 50mm...Philip
I noticed on the first series of photos, the ISO was different for the Sigma. Would that have made any big differences?
Susan Nelson No - the other settings were adjusted to compensate and create a valid exposure comparable to the others. We have been using two copies of the sigma now for months and they are just fantastic.
I asked , you answered (not that you made the video just for me). Thanks for the info. Ill be watching the video a few more times so it sinks in and i can figure out what to buy or borrow for my first prime lense. Acually, my first non kit lense. Sounds like the 35mm or 50mm will be the best for my 70D when walking around SF. Thanks agian.
I'd personally like to walk around with the 35mm. But honestly I also really like that lovely little 40mm f/2.8 for walk around work and lightweight travel.
For a good walk around have a look at the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.. Totally awesome if you can afford the $1,000 for it. And 1/2 the cost of the canon L series it competes against, and it;s 95% of the quality.
I just subscribed to your channel. Good job with this review!
Are you able to use a Sigma lens on a CANON T5 camera? PLEASE HELP AND THANK YOU!!
Thanks. Good Review.
I'm still thinking if I should go for the 50mm L or 50mm ART.
I own the 35mm ART and love it, but with very unstable weather conditions here and the possibility of beach sessions, with 50mm being my favourite and first choice portrait lens, I am a bit worried bout the lack of sealing in Sigma. At the moment that's the only thing stopping me from shopping. Any advice? Please... :)
Kasia My Full House a cheap plastic bag around the lens can easily do all the weatherproofing of the 50mm f/1.2 from Canon :) Also - would you really be shooting in the rain or you can just quickly put the camera away. Can you tell I am leaning toward the sigma ;)
PhotoRec Toby Yes I can, Toby and I can clearly hear it watching your film.The point is - I was leaning toward the Sigma and actually decided to get it but then I got second thoughts, read some more reviews and... changed my mind, was even thinking to get the Canon next week.
Then, I come across your film and here I am - on the crossroad again! Plastic bag does not sound too professional but I get the point, especially when you claim that the Sigma is sharper and the AF is more reliable and - let's be frank, this rain issue is not an every day problem.
Plus, that would leave me money for the Speedlite that I need anyway..
LOL
I will let you know what I decide :)
PhotoRec Toby Ok Ok Ok, just bought my lens today - any clue?? ;)
Kasia My Full House you bought the sigma?!
Kasia My Full House I missed this comment! I think you went with the Sigma :)
What f/1.4 prime lens would you recommend for a beginner photographer (max $500 USD)? Mainly for portrait (some action) shots at my church/youth group events.
The 50mm f/1.4 would be my pick unless you think it is to narrow a view. Sigmas 30mm f/1.4 is good but has some focus issues.
CameraRec Toby Thanks for the quick reply. I take it the focus issues you mention on the Sigma are independent of the camera? I'm using a 70D. The 50mm is fairly narrow but is usable, just have to get back far enough from the subjects.
Shame. This guy doesn't understand the 'look' that the L 50 makes. Pixel peepers won't ever be happy with the 50L - portraits look more flattening with the L hands down.
Thank you for this review!
Thanks for the review. How would you compare the Sigma 35mm Art to the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art for those looking for the 50mm full frame equivalent on a crop sensor body?
If you know you will be shooting on a crop sensor for awhile the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is VERY sharp - very similar in quality to the Sigma 35m f/1.8. A little more distortion but you get a more versatile lens.
I am seriously considering this lens to use with a Canon 5D4. Do you still feel the same way about this 50mm ART now that it is 4.5 years later? It would be very helpful to me. thanks....
I really do - it remains a fantastic lens. bhpho.to/2SMcGxY
@@photorectoby Thanks. As always, your replies appreciated. Keep up the good work. If you're ever in the NYC area, give a shout out for a cup of coffee or a shoot.......
at 5:29, isnt the third stop difference becouse of the different iso? :-)
Great vids. I have learned a lot from your channel. For a first lens with a D7100, would you recommend one of the art lenses (I was thinking Sigma 35mm f1.4) or the more versatile, and expensive, Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8? Right now I want to shoot my dogs, travel stuff, and basic landscapes. $$ isn't necessarily a concern as I know glass is an investment. Thanks again for your time!
Hi Adam, I love primes and I feel everyone should have at least one but I don't necessarily think it is the best and/or first option. I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 24-105 f/4 IS for your first lens. later add the 35mm f/1.4.
CameraRec Toby Thanks. Do you have any experience with the sigma 24-105? I've seen really positive things about the Nikon 24-70, just cant find that much info on the sigma. Thanks again.
Adam Martin I haven't used the Sigma 24-105 but reviewers I trust praise it highly and I have been recommending it. If you don't mind f/4 it is a great lens - VERY sharp.
CameraRec Toby Thanks. Have you used the Nikon 24-70? I have seen really good things about it, but couldn't find a video with your review. Plus, I trust your opinion more than other reviewers =) Worth the extra $$?
The Sigma seem to have much more microcontrast even when the Canons caught up at smaller apertures
why did u not talk about the focus speed? :/
Pixel peeping the 1.2 lens is worthless. The overall artistic feeling you achieve by it can't be measured by comparing specks of dust in the corners.
great video Toby. :D
Which is better segma 50mm f/1.4 or 40mm f/2.8? Please do reply. I need a good suggestion..
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is sharper but the 40mm f/2.8 is also VERY good, MUCH cheaper and tiny.
But which is better if I am fan of taking pictures of a small objects? Any suggestion? Is it lens 40mm f/2.8 or sigma 50mm.. I also heard about sigma 30mm.. I'm confused..
Shes Unique For small objects? Like macro shots? What camera do you have?
Canon700d :-)
CameraRec Toby hi, iam confusing i have a canon 60d whitch perfact for this
please reply
Is it really worth for trading my 24-70mm f4L to sigma 50 mm f1.4 Art
No
My old Rokkor 58mm f 1.4 blows these away . I tested them too .
+machia0705 If you say so.. Rather than giving your opinion, why not SHOW us. Where are your comparison images to back your claims? If you don't have any then you are just another internet commenter.
I've never posted on RUclips . Tell me how to do it and I will share them with you !
Rokkor glass was excellent . Even used by LEICA . Minolta was never regarded as a serious camera system but it was in my opinion second to none .
machia0705 I never realised Minolta wasn't taken seriously. In the film days I always thought of Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax as the big 4 (not necessarily in that order) out of the mainstream 35mm manufacturers. I preferred Minolta to Nikon, but Canon was my favourite.
A friend of mine had a Minolta SRT101 and I borrowed his handbook to learn about apertures and shutter speeds. That manual then set me on the path to reading everything I could get my hands on and becoming a photographer.
At one stage I owned a Minolta Dynax 7 with an off-camera flash setup and it had a razor sharp lens (I think it was a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 from memory). I have a Minolta Dynax 5 in a cupboard somewhere, still in brand new condition.
Don't worry about uploading images just for me, but if you ever need to do so it is best to upload them to some web space you have and give people a link.
WHICH ONE IS THE BEST ? efs17-55 efs OR SIGMA ?
Sigma!!
Thank you very much for your prompt response!!
The L is the only 'art' lens there. The other two are mere lenses. (Too strong? ...sorry)
Aggression, I stand corrected and a few feet back.
Sean S Photography true and agreed!
Just ordered the sigma 30mm for crop, any chance for a comparison 30mm vs 35mm on crop?
The 30mm ART vs the 35mm ART? Will see what I can do. If possible it will be later in August.
CameraRec Toby yes, thank you. seems to perform abit worst full open (more chroma, less sharpness in corners), but its so nice a compact ...
CameraRec Toby yay! I'm so looking forward to this review too!
The Sigma lens has intermittent focusing issues according to other reviewers.
Hi, I'm looking at this lense for video work on a gh4 with a speedbooster. on slr lounges video review they talk about how much this lense breathes when you pull focus. Have you noticed this. In the clip they show its a tremendous amount but I've not heard or seen this anywhere else.
Spencer Moret?authuser=1 I have heard this too and keep meaning to play some, give me a shout in a day or too - best place is on my FB page @Digital.Photo.Recommendations and I will do my best to post a sample or at least share my findings.
Thanks for great job!
thx a lot, it helps me that much to make my decission! It's the sigma 👍
Lots of emphasis on sharpness...
Did you watch the entire video? Bokeh, focus speed are also covered. Anything else I would be happy to answer?
Thanks for the reply. Yes I did. Looking forward to your next review.
I think they are simply too big and too expensive. I'm more then happy with my 50 1.8, and wont ever upgrade. The quality of my pics are awesome. Don't need to zoom in 100x too see if a picture is sharp, if its sharp the way it was taken guess what... its sharp.
I mam not a fan of zooming to 100% in photos either but when being paid to take photos I want to make sure I get my money's worth and being able to save $500 and get a sharper lens - easy decision :)
love the new intro music
Thanks!
if it is more expensive, this is better ! thanks
That Sigma is $900? Lawd have mercy!
The Canon is $1350.
@@photorectoby For that kind of money... might want to consider the Sigma 24-70mm zoom f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon EF. $1299.00 // or the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon EF... $1099. Both at B&H Photo.
right, canon is better !!!!!!!!!